Shashikant Singh Yadav Vs Alok Shukla

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:22045

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CONT No. 869 of 2021

¶6

1 - Shashikant Singh Yadav S/o Late Ramashray Yadav, Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 133, Ward No. 13, Behind Jahaz Building, Near Church, Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Alok Shukla Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Pravesh Singh Baghel District Education Officer, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause title is taken from CIS system)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

11/05/2026

¶17

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶18

Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 22.06.2021, passed in WPS No. 2757 of 2021 by respondents/contemnor.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner herein would submit that petitioner had submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment,

¶20

2

¶21

which was rejected on the ground that brother of petitioner was in government service taking note of the Clause 6-A of the consolidated direction of the State Government for grant of compassionate appointment. He submits that in the writ petition, the writ Court has directed to decide the claim of petitioner only after conducting enquiry with regard to dependency. Order passed in writ petition was put to challenge by the State Government in W.A. No.223 of 2023, wherein it was brought to the notice of Division Bench that State Government has acted upon order/direction issued by the writ Court and accordingly, writ appeal was dismissed living it open with respondents to proceed in accordance with law. He submits that though the enquiry report which is submitted by respondent is not in accordance with the direction issued by the writ Court, therefore, respondent has committed contempt of order dated 22.06.2021, passed in WPS No. 2757 of 2021.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent submits that in compliance of the order passed by the writ court, enquiry was conducted and according to the Committee constituted to conduct enquiry, on the date of submission of application, brother of petitioner was in government service. Enquiry report was submitted on 03.01.2024, therefore, respondent has complied with the directions issued by the Court.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the order passed in the writ petition.

¶24

It is not in dispute that contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 22.06.2021 passed in WPS No. 2757 of 2021 of not conducting an enquiry as directed by the writ petition.

¶25

3

¶26

Along with application for taking documents on record supported with an affidavit, respondent has placed on record the enquiry report dated 03.01.2024 as Document AD-2. Perusal of which would show that Committee constituted for enquiry had found that petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment as per Clause 6-A of the consolidated guidelines for grant of compassionate appointment, 2013.

¶27

Division Bench of this Court in case of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, in WPS No. 6689 of 2018 and other connected matters, decided on 06.09.2022, while considering the issue relating to a direction to the State Government to conduct an enquiry with regard to dependency/financial support, has observed thus :-

¶28

Reiterating the conclusion in Neeraj Kumar Uke (supra) and bearing in mind that compassionate appointment must be governed by terms on which the State lays down the policy offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee, the question posed by the learned Single Judge is answered by observing that this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua dependency/ financial support by one of the family members of the deceased government servant who is already in government service to the other family members of the deceased government servant when a claim is made by another member of the family for compassionate appointment as the same would amount to rewriting the terms of the policy.”

¶29

In the aforementioned facts fo the case when the enquiry was conducted and report has been submitted observing that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment, in the opinion of this Court

¶30

4

¶31

the respondent authorities have complied with the direction issued by this Court in WPS No.2757 of 2021 dated 22.06.2021.

¶32

Accordingly, contempt proceedings initiated against respondents is dropped, contempt notice stands discharged and the contempt petition is closed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse of law if he aggrieved with the report submitted by the Committee.

¶33

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶34

Balram

Shashikant Singh Yadav v. Alok Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Singh Yadav v. Alok Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Engineers and Builder Private Limited Vs Sarans Mittal

Jai Sandhya Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Odadabri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bal Chand Kachhwaha Vs (Deleted), Dr. Alok Shukla

Yadram Yadav Vs Rajeev Rai

Santoshi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayantrao Gaikwad, Vs Manish Mishra